Conversations with ChatGPT: ChatGPT debunks Tolkacz, igniting spirited debate

 I wrote this article on Paintings as language and asked ChatGPT to summarize it for me. 

The author argues that language is not limited to just words and grammar but can also include pictograms and paintings. They draw on Derrida's idea that a sign represents a thing in its absence and explain that this applies to dogs and birds who can communicate things that are not present, but not humans. The author believes that paintings, as a form of written language, can represent stories in the absence of the storyteller and are a form of linguistic expression. They conclude by acknowledging that this view is a departure from the typical linguistic focus on words and grammar, but they stand by it.

I then asked it for a rebuttal of this argument. It focused on my distinction between dog communication and bird communication. It was an effective argument, but, we have no dogs that are capable of referring to anything in its absence, and we have crows that can use language in our Derriddean sense. So, our footing is very strong. 

It's next tactic was to open up the definition of language beyond my Derriddean restriction:

The argument presented in the text is that the ability to communicate about things that are not immediately present is what separates language from mere communication. While birds such as crows are indeed capable of sophisticated communication, including referring to others in their absence, this does not necessarily make their communication a language in the traditional sense. The distinction between language and communication is complex and often depends on one's definition of language, with some scholars drawing a distinction between linguistic communication and non-linguistic communication. It is possible that while crows possess some elements of linguistic communication, they may still lack certain features that are considered essential to language by some definitions. Ultimately, the debate over the distinction between language and communication is ongoing and will likely continue to evolve as new evidence and perspectives emerge.

Ultimately, what constitutes language is a matter of appropriation. We will, perhaps, settle on a definition when it is useful to do so. At this point, there are some who want to place us ahead of all other forms of life because we can talk. And yes, our language is far more complex than animals. We must still remind ourselves that the bar we set can either be high enough to disclude crows, or low enough to include them. That is a choice.  We also need to differentiate language from communication, sensory input, and bare signal processing—even if they are built one on top of the other. 

I've focused on an important definition that I think gives us a sense of what makes language more than communication, but not so high that we can shift the goalpost every time we learn something new about dolphins or birds. Indeed, there are some who are motivated to do this only because it feels good to humanity. I'm largely disinterested in that.